There is an element of this which is not surprising being that medicare covers the elderly which tend to require the most (and the most expensive) treatments. With that said, being that the United States spends as much per-capita on Medicare and Medicaid as other developed nations spend on their entire healthcare systems, this does beg the question "where is all the money going?"

I believe the money is being wasted on a criminally inefficient system. Although I like the idea of medicaid in theory, I do not agree with how it is run and the way it has acted on solving certain logistical issues. It operates in a very flawed manner imo. I think a hybrid system where the national sector could go to benefit 100% of Americans could be done in a way which operates far more efficiently than the current system.

This!

The healthcare in the US is horrid.  No, not the quality of care, but the ability of the people to get sufficient coverage.   Go and ask your doctor and ask them what they think of the public option or a government based health care system.  They will almost be in unanimous agreement that they would prefer a public option, and even more a Universal coverage that covers all people.  How do I know this?   I have family who are doctors and have worked for health care systems and know what they think on it.  

It cannot be run like Medicare, and Medicare should be replaced by a Universal coverage plan.  The overhead needs to be low, and it needs to be run and operated by highly intelligent business people that are able to figure out how to run it, without costing tax payers a huge sum of money to have it.  Other countries around the world have better health coverage than the US does, and if the US is so dang good, why is our health care so horrible?

The entire concept of Healthcare that the world uses today (the treatment of sick people) is critically flawed and changing who pays for it doesn't make much of a difference ...

The old cliche your grandmother probably knew well "A dime of prevention is worth a dollar of cure" is still correct today, but worldwide the dime of prevention is an ignored concept so we can fund people to produce the dollar cure.

clearly this is why up until recently the AMA has been against the public option.... and are currently only for a very token public option.

No most doctors actually DON'T want government run healthcare.

I think it's ignored for a much simpler reason.

It's hard to sell.

Afterall places with near universal healthcare coverage don't have the best records with prevention... as people look at things like "a free checkup every 6 months" as wasteful since it's "Healthcare for the well".  Even though it would save money in the long run.

Also a lot of people don't want to go to preventitive steps.

I mean to go through a prevenetivive step is to admit that you may end up with the problem.  Lots of people fear going to the doctor because they're afraid of bad news... despite the fact that it's not the doctor who creates the bad news.

And what proof do you have?  Have you asked any Doctors?   Of course, you'll probably load your question up in a way that will intimidate them to either not respond or to tell you what you want to hear so that they don't have to get into a political game with someone using your tactics.  ;)

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3143203520080331

As of this poll, taken last year, 59% support a universal health care plan. 

The government will not be running the hospitals.  They will be offering a non-profit and low overhead costing insurance. 

Please, give me evidence of all these doctors who do not want your loaded question.  **waits patiently for your newsmax/World nut daily/Fox news link to support your stance**

The AMA is a better source the rueters.  What with the AMA being run by the doctors who vote on the stuff themselves.

Ruerters takes a sampling.

The AMA is basically all doctors voting for a leader and a platform.

Want to know the doctors majority opinions?  Ask the American Medical Assosiation.

Unions represent what their workers want.

Nonprofit insurance would be great.  If it says nonprofit.  As in, no actual government funds could be put towards it.  Only what people pay into it for care and overhead.

Instead what will likely happen is they will drive a bunch of taxpayers funds to the program to push other companies out of buisness.

I mean otherwise why not just incentivise the making of private non-profit insurance?

I've heard many opinion polls taken on government run healthcare and it's always seemed to me that US doctors actually support a public healthcare system. In fact in 2008 in the journal 'annals of medicine' 59% of doctors supported a national healthcare service, this was up from 49% from the same poll taken 4 years before. Only 32% opposed it, down from 40% (Source). I have seen several polls similar results.

I will accept your ineviatable counter argument that 65% of doctors oppose the universal healthcare plan and rightly so, I agree. But the trend shows that the majority of doctors support a government run healthcare system or a hybrid system, they just don't support the government run healthcare system proposed.

I agree to an extent, the money spent on the treatment of sick people is far too much when so much could be saved with preventative measures. Taking my country as a case study, our national system here in the UK conducts a lot of preventative campaigns, no smoking campaigns, anti binge drinking campaigns, healthy food campaigns and so on. From what I understand they are effective to a degree, but I personally would like to see more preventative measures taken too.